About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student hosing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the annual report would not be as extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when
that we're contemplating? great. commissioner antonini, i would move to adopt? >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, as you know, there is a statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. but it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. i mean, you can use other methods of doing it. from what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area? what do they do? if they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have all the information. i
, public comment is closed >>> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions on the memo. and i am led to believe when i first saw this, i thought it was the entire program. but this is only a memo dealing with the resale of existing ownership units and then dealing with the other entities here. for example, as i recall unless it's changed, your for-sale ownership units are 100 ami and it can be up to 120 in some instances, but i believe it's always been at 100 ami has been the price for-sale units. and then the rental units at 60 ami? >> that is correct, but there has been adjustment. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to
the project as proposed. * >> commissioner antonini. >> i just wanted to ask one other question, maybe for ms. barkley, i guess, would probably be the best speaking for project sponsors. the other part of the picture was to take part of that deck and turn it into a skylight on the other section without moving the family room. would that have an adverse effect on your project? >>> first of all, we are talking about there are five, what they are basically talking about -- now we're talking about moving the privacy screen that they asked for in the five feet and there is a problem about how you support that going up when you're moving it into the middle of the deck instead of following basically the exterior because you're going to have to anchor that because it doesn't have any roof. and then in addition to that, in the front at the very end, actually, facing the backyard, we have created a -- to address the privacy concern, we have now created a fairly deep planter area. so, there are actually two railings in that area that run right about the property line is 30 inches, then going in three fe
of quick comments and we are in the middle of a motion. >> commissioner antonini. >>> yeah, air force question for mr. tig, in regards to the individually eligible -- individual properties now two questions first of all,, i heard you say something about north of harrison it seems it to me, that they should be eligible anywhere in the district including the area south but most of them are north and north of hair south but it it would seem to me that the whole point is allow them the flexibility to develop what they need to be viable and if they happen to be in a district that is more restricted than it used to to be i'm to the sure what you are saying in your proposal. >> sure so again, that the s o i and to a even greater extent sally even though's not a pd r district it's designed to function as a pd r district and to a great end decent the neighborhoods were not granted the same fleck act for historic buildings because of competing goals and the preserve thing the competing goals in that district went out and that was the proposal in had area too is that one of the incidentses b
antonini. >> thank you. actually, was able to go out there and see the site a little bit in the past, but i did have a question maybe for ms. barkley. i guess, i'm looking at the two plans next to each other. if i am correct, there are no changes that are being proposed by d-r requestor to the lower two floors. it's only the upper floor -- >> that's correct. >> and i guess everyone is agreed upon the light gray color and the translucent windows to, you know, minimize the amount of darkness on that area. and i think -- >>> that is already established. >> all i'm seeing here is the family room being moved to the sort of more to the center and taking up part of the open roof that would be to the east side if my direction is complete. and they're claiming this family room is larger in the version, the janet campbell version than the other version. i haven't quite been able to figure that out and they're putting a couple skylights in that area. >>> first of all, i think the first thing is that the owners wanted to live certain way and they have designed this building so that it accommodates not
republicans. not you, dr. antonini. i think this will cut off debate, cut off their ability to appeal. no matter how much supervisor wiener and the department says, oh, no, this is to streamline, to make it more predictable, to cut down costs, and that it will do. it would make it more predictable. things will go through, no appeals. it will cut down costs because, well, no appeals. and the time frame would be shortened. and some of these projects that were mentioned, the bike grant for example, that was delayed because the department didn't do an e-i-r. give me a break. and the housing element of 2004, again, no e-i-r. it was a negative declaration. the department really has to be watched. san francisco is only 47 square miles and we need the strongest c-e-q-a laws that could be in existence. we can't lower it to the state level. this is crucial. we live in a dense area and here people are just trying to cut back public debate, public opportunities for appeal. it's almost as though the lobbyists were allowed to write this. you heard some of the developers here -- one developer. you k
up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a couple of things and i think most of my concerns were more properly be brought up during the project itself because they have to do with the zoning. however, there was mention of in a spur letter that had to do with the interest in there being a supplemental eir. it does not affect the certification of this eir, but basically what they say in their letter is that they are concerned, and this fits into some of my later concerns, that a supplemental focus for this eir be done in addition to this to help determining what properties are eligible for state or national registry, and i think that's a very good idea, but i don't believe that we have to take that up at this time. i might ask for some advice from the city attorney in regards to that particular issue. >> deputy city attorney. i'm sorry would you mind repeating the question. >> well, the question is this and it's two fold and i'm going to do the same thing with the central corridor, but it was recommended that by spur, and i am sure others have spoken to the same th
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)